Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Einsteinbud


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Einsteinbud
(0/5/3); ended 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC), closed early per WP:NOTNOW by 

Nomination
– My request to become an admin Einsteinbud (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am user on wikipedia since over 2 years. I became a member on Wikipedia in the last couple of months.

I find it my goal to make free information to the public, in order to increase knowledge availability on the world. Nothing is more efficient for that goal than Wikipedia. I hope that by becoming an admin, I will be able to strengthen Wikipedia's goal and achieve what Wikipedia is all about. There so many times issues where I cannot provide any support for an article, and that I could be helpful to others by providing immediate help when an admin-position.


 * Support because I know that I am relatively new, but I do my best to clearly explain my edits, and, even if I haven't made yet over 3000 edits, I edit whenever I can. In the sense that, I don't edit the information in an article, I add information in an article. But, as one can see, I do on average over 3,5 edits a day. The main point is that I am a very active user, I check for plenty of articles the history to check the evolution of the article, and edit what I feel could be improved. If I do not know what is the best way to improve it, then I put it on the discussion page of that article. (for example, I put into discussion the issue of the slogan of Star Alliance, see SA discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinbud (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that I will be able to achieve more of all the above mentioned goals by becoming an admin. In addition to that, I hope that if me request for nomination is not accepted, it is because Wikipedia has found a more competent admin, who in the meantime is more competent towards achieving these goals than me. --Einsteinbud (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I enjoy reading articles over wikipedia. I am particularly intrested in the field of aviation. But I read and I am intrested a lot in many other fields as well. Because of my interest in everything that relates to aviation, I could prove myself very helpful in that. However, in anything that I see on wikipedia that I could improve, I would like to improve it. I am interested to participate in any work on Wikipedia that can more information available.--Einsteinbud (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Everything that relates to aviation, other things as well which include: European Union, politics, history,...


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have had conflicts editing when I was new to Wikipedia as a member and uploaded pictures that where copyright protected when I was unfamiliar with its policies. In other conflicts, I contacted the admin on his personal page explaining the issue and trying to solve it. I have also posted my opinion on the matter on the discussion page of an article when I was trying to explain why I believed a specific edit had to be made, or what the correct information on that issue.

Questions by Mythdon

 * 4. What is your understanding of our policy on verifiability?
 * A:That information added on Wikipedia is only valid when serious references are quoted. A reference includes official sites, not a private blog. For small details, no reference is required (ie. you don't see in an article for every word and sentence a reference.)


 * 5. When should rollback be used to revert edits?
 * A:When a specific edit has not contributed anything, only damaged.

And when it is clear that edit made was vandalism, such as deleting a large portion of an article, then the proper action to take is to revert the edit. This is only if the vandalism was discovered immediately, and not if many edits have already been made after it, because by reverting the edits at that point, valuable information might disappear from the article.


 * 6. What is the purpose of blocks and bans?
 * A: The purpose is to prevent users from whom it has been proved that they violate Wikipedia's policies till the point that they constantly try to inflict damage and vandalize. It is not a punishment, but intended to protect wikipedia's article and ensure not to discourage users who make edits out of good faith.


 * 7. At what times do you consider edits vandalism?
 * A:When a wrong edit has been made over and over again, and/or always in the same style when having been informed several times by an admin or co-user of Wikipedia that this is harmful. When a user deletes an important part of an article, and does it again after the edit has been reverted. I do not believe that all damage done is vandalism, but sometimes, there are edits where is impossible to assume that it was another intention than vandalism.

General comments

 * Links for Einsteinbud:
 * Edit summary usage for Einsteinbud can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Einsteinbud before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I've moved this comment to the discussion section. You may not support yourself. Sorry, iMatthew : Chat  13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You really need tons more experience. The admin tools relate specifically to sysop authority-- deleting articles, blocking other users, protecting articles. That is a tremendous responsibility. One can build the encyclopedia and improve it w/o admin responsibilities. One should build/improve the 'pedia w/o those tools. Once one has earned the confidence of the community, showing a knowledge of the related policies, one can seek adminsip. You should carefully review the advice offered by IMatthew below. It's probably the best advice one can offer. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support Would have opposed but supporting per WP:AGF. Keep up the hard work. Pmlinediter   Talk

Oppose

 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew :  Chat  12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per iMatthew (I was actually going to submit a NOTNOW !vote myself when I saw his in the edit box!). --&rarr;  Dylan 620  (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes I have to agree with those above. Insufficient amount of time editing and not enough contributions. But please, do keep up the good work, in another year or so, renominate yourself, I'm sure you'll be the perfect candidate by then.--( NGG ) 12:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I respect your clean block log, and as the photographs you loaded that were subsequently deleted as copyright violations were some months ago I'm happy to accept your assurance that you learned wp:COPYVIO as a result. However this diff is only from March and seems to show you removing a speedy tag from a photo you loaded without asserting that you are in a position to release the copyright. I'd also like an explanation as to what you've learned about copy paste moves since the Brussels incident. So overall I'm afraid I don't think you are ready yet, but I hope we will see you here again after a further three months editing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, answer to Q1 does not show why this editor needs access to the tools. Nakon  15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, answer to Q1 does not show why this editor needs access to the tools. Nakon  15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Not going to pile on, keep up the good work and come back in 4-6 months.-- Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above, sorry. :-( You seem like a good guy, keep it up. Meetare Shappy  Cunkelfratz! 13:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) per giant, werespiel and Imatthew. I do support Wikignomes, but you need  a lot of wikignoming. Find some articles to expand. There are still notable subjects lacking articles. I don't require FA, GA, or DYK, but a lot of RFA-ers do. Once you've made a bunch of substantial additions to the 'pedia, look at page patrolling, vandalism reversion, etc. Look for articles to improve, but know when to tag for deletion too. Build a reputation for knowing polices for article building and the tool related areas. The more familiarity you gain with all the policies, the more the community will trust you with the Mop. Cheers, and good luck for the future.   Dloh  cierekim  13:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.